r18015 - gnucash/branches - Create 2.4 branch

[Derek Atkins]

I'm not sure there's really enough development going on that would
warrant doing it that way.  I can't think of anything that's under
development in a dev branch that we'd want in trunk and not 2.4..
However I can think of lots of stuff (e.g. stabilization bug fixes)
that we'll definitely want to put have in 2.3/2.4 and trunk, so
delaying the branch until as late as possible is always the right
answer.

I admire you being proactive, and I appreciate you taking the lead
on the 2.4 release engineer!   Thank you.

-derek

Quoting Phil Longstaff <plongstaff at rogers.com>:

> I was using the development model that anything could go into trunk 
> but not necessarily into 2.3.x, so I created the branch to separate 
> the targeted 2.3.x development from the more general trunk 
> development.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU>
> To: Christian Stimming <stimming at tuhh.de>
> Cc: gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 4:27:59 PM
> Subject: Re: r18015 - gnucash/branches - Create 2.4 branch
>
> Hi,
>
> Quoting Christian Stimming <stimming at tuhh.de>:
>
>> Am Sonntag, 5. April 2009 01:45 schrieb Phil Longstaff:
>>> Author: plongstaff
>>> Date: 2009-04-04 19:45:29 -0400 (Sat, 04 Apr 2009)
>>> New Revision: 18015
>>> Trac: http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/changeset/18015
>>>
>>> Added:
>>>    gnucash/branches/2.4/
>>> Log:
>>> Create 2.4 branch
>>
>> Err... this 2.4 branch is copied from trunk r18014, but you've already done
>> further work on trunk which most probably should also be applied to any 2.4
>> branch there will be. Does this mean the 2.4 creation was prematurely? This
>> is fine and it's okay to delete it for now and re-create (copy) 
>> later. Or did
>> I miss some specific planning which was the reason to decide that trunk
>> r18014 was a particularly good code state to start a 2.4 branch?
>>
>> IMHO if we indeed plan for a 2.4 release cycle in the near future, the
>> branching from trunk to 2.4-branch will occur very shortly before the first
>> release candidate (maybe numbered 2.3.x) will be released, but not earlier
>> than that. To my knowledge, there isn't such an experimental 2.3.0 release
>> planned in the near future, or is there?
>>
>> I'm asking because once there is indeed a 2.4 branch, I will have to 
>> take care
>> to copy over all 2.2 (stable branch) translations on the new 2.4 stable
>> branch. The trunk translations are (intentionally) much much older than the
>> 2.2 translations, so starting a new stable branch will trigger some 
>> noticable
>> overhead work on the translation side which needs to be done. It's fine with
>> me to do this, but I need some clear communication about what is going to
>> happen with the 2.4 branch.
>
> Yes, this branch is WAY premature..  WAY WAY WAAAAYYY premature.
>
> We need to have a series of 2.3.x releases off of trunk first and
> then only cut 2.4 AFTER 2.4.0 (or maybe even after 2.4.1 or 2.4.2) once
> we think there's enough "to be committed" work that would require
> branching off.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christian
>
> -derek
>
> --       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
>      Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
>      URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
>      warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-devel mailing list
> gnucash-devel at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
>



-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available